Clearance direct via radar vector

BrianNC

BrianNC

Well-Known Member
I was reading an past article in AOPA where Rick Durden flew a 152 on a 1000 cross country in IFR weather and he made these comments:

The GPS gives the bearing to Lunken. I ask for a clearance direct via a radar vector of 170 degrees. Request granted, and shazaam, I'm navigating directly toward my destination. Because my handheld GPS is not my primary navaid, it's all perfectly legal...

...The request for "direct via radar vectors" is granted so quickly I imagine I can hear the Cincinnati controller's thoughts, "Yes! Yes! Anything to get this en route altitude block out of my hair."
Click to expand...
I have been instrument rated for a few years but never really flown any IFR, but I don't remember studying "direct via radar vectors". I assume you are just asking to go direct to your destination and requesting a particular heading to get there. Is it common?
 
BrianNC said:
I was reading an past article in AOPA where Rick Durden flew a 152 on a 1000 cross country in IFR weather and he made these comments:

I have been instrument rated for a few years but never really flown any IFR, but I don't remember studying "direct via radar vectors". I assume you are just asking to go direct to your destination and requesting a particular heading to get there. Is it common?
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't know bout filing /u or /a and asking for a direct clearence with radar vectors. It would be touch and go with the controllers if they'd give it to you or not.
 
BrianNC said:
I I assume you are just asking to go direct to your destination and requesting a particular heading to get there. Is it common?
Click to expand...
It might depend where. I've been offered direct by controllers more than once. Since I have a GPS handheld, I've asked for a vector. The result is similar to what Durden is talking about. On vecdors from a technical legal sense but using non-IFR GPS as a "secondary" nav tool.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It might depend where. I've been offered direct by controllers more than once. Since I have a GPS handheld, I've asked for a vector. The result is similar to what Durden is talking about. On vecdors from a technical legal sense but using non-IFR GPS as a "secondary" nav tool.
Click to expand...
Right. A way to get direct without having an approved GPS on board, but still being able to use a hand-held.
 
mikecweb said:
It would be touch and go with the controllers if they'd give it to you or not.
Click to expand...

surreal1221 said:
There is no faster way to get under a controller's skin than to ask for direct to your destination. . .

:)
Click to expand...

I can't count the number of times I've been cleared direct by means of a vector. "Fly heading 245, direct Peach Springs when able." Just remember to include the assigned heading as part of the check-in with the next center controller.



It's no big deal.






.
 
TonyC said:
I can't count the number of times I've been cleared direct by means of a vector. "Fly heading 245, direct Peach Springs when able." Just remember to include the assigned heading as part of the check-in with the next center controller.

It's no big deal.

.
Click to expand...

Did you ask for it?

Or did they just give it to you as part of your departure from someplace? I know coming out of the LA Basin alone, on the LAXX5 SID, you can expect vectors direct to TRM on course, but that's not the same as . . . asking for direct to Newark once with your first center controller. :)

What I meant was, the quickest way to get under a controllers skin is to. . . on check in, or while puttsing around enroute you ask for direct to your destination.

YMMV (Night isn't as bad, and direct routes are more frequent).

Then again, if memory serves correctly. . . TonyC, you do work for the golden carrot cargo flyer . . . at night. . . with less traffic density in the NAS.
 
surreal1221 said:
Did you ask for it?


... that's not the same as . . . asking for direct to Newark once with your first center controller. :)

What I meant was, the quickest way to get under a controllers skin is to. . . on check in, or while puttsing around enroute you ask for direct to your destination.

YMMV (Night isn't as bad, and direct routes are more frequent).

Then again, if memory serves correctly. . . TonyC, you do work for the golden carrot cargo flyer . . . at night. . . with less traffic density in the NAS.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we ask, and sometimes they just offer. And sometimes we do it at night, but it works as well during the day.

:)




(I'll keep an eye out for those golden carrots! ;) )


.
 
I was flying a mooney out of KMEM one night. I had filed IFR. No gps on board. /a or /u if I remember correctly. I filed vors/victor airways etc. After telling him the route, the FSS guy asked me if I wanted to "just go direct." I told him I didn't have a gps on board. He said it doesn't matter. It's aparently easier for them or something. I told him I'd prefer to keep my filed route. After taking off and switching to departure I was instantly cleared direct destination. This has happened to me twice flying out of memphis.
 
BrianNC said:
I was reading an past article in AOPA where Rick Durden flew a 152 on a 1000 cross country in IFR weather and he made these comments:
The GPS gives the bearing to Lunken. I ask for a clearance direct via a radar vector of 170 degrees. Request granted, and shazaam, I'm navigating directly toward my destination. Because my handheld GPS is not my primary navaid, it's all perfectly legal...

...The request for "direct via radar vectors" is granted so quickly I imagine I can hear the Cincinnati controller's thoughts, "Yes! Yes! Anything to get this en route altitude block out of my hair."
Click to expand...

I have been instrument rated for a few years but never really flown any IFR, but I don't remember studying "direct via radar vectors". I assume you are just asking to go direct to your destination and requesting a particular heading to get there. Is it common?
Click to expand...

'Direct via radar vectors" is a very common work-around that has come into being with the advent of GPS, especially handheld units. The idea is to use the information from a VFR only GPS to steer a direct course to a navaid or destination, and cover the legal issue by asking for a vector from the controller since the GPS is not *legal* for primary IFR navigation. It is not an *approved* method and some controllers (read Don Brown - AvWeb) argue against it's use. The downside of this technique is that a VFR GPS does not have the redundancy and cross-check software assurances that an IFR unit does, yet 99.9% of the time it is just as accurate. And since you are under radar control there shouldn't be any problem, but you have to ask yourself the question of why some GPS units are VFR only, and others cost so much more to be panel mounted and IFR certified....
 
surreal1221 said:
I know coming out of the LA Basin alone, on the LAXX5 SID,
Click to expand...
Why would you think that the limitations that exist in a high density traffic area like the LA Basin would apply in other places also? Asking for a direct clearance in the LA Basin or other high-traffic areas is likely raise slightly different issues than asking for, say, direct Albuquerque when departing Kansas City.
 
SteveC said:
but you have to ask yourself the question of why some GPS units are VFR only, and others cost so much more to be panel mounted and IFR certified....
Click to expand...
It's probably because there is a verification process to make sure that there is no interference. Or, it could be for the same reason that something labeled "aviation" or purchased from an "aviation store" is often 2-3 times a expensive as the exact same thing without that label - vertical marketing premiums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top